rename_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the consequence that a new name on a shared list is visible to all sharers, which tells the agent this is externally observable. However, it never states permission/ownership requirements, what happens if listId is invalid, or whether the rename is reversible — significant gaps for a mutation with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the impact, with no filler. The create-list caveat is slightly tangential to renaming but earns its place as a guardrail against a wrong tool call.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given three fully documented required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, visibility side effect, and an adjacent-operation boundary — enough for correct invocation. Missing error/permission behavior keeps it short of a 5 on a mutation tool with no annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that listName is the current name (confirm-only, not sent to the API) and that listId comes from get_lists. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond pointing implicitly at the list being renamed, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rename an existing shopping list') with unambiguous scope — the list must already exist. No sibling tool performs renaming, so the agent can distinguish it immediately from edit_items, add_items, or delete_list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear context for use (renaming an existing list) plus an explicit exclusion: this server can't create lists, so the agent should direct the user to the Listonic app. That boundary guidance prevents a misfire, though it doesn't name a sibling tool or state prerequisites for renaming.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.